If you meant "desidero", blutoonwithcarrotandnail, it can take a subject accusative with the infinitive. "[As] a man, I require servants to work." Otherwise, I don't get the future perfect of "desideo" or "desido" with a subject accusative and infinitive: "[As] a man, I will have settled down servants to work". I didn't know you could use that there, but lots I don't know as a learner, of course.

Ego (qui vir sum) desidero: servos laborare. "I, a man, require servants to work" or "I, as a man, require servants to do work" or "A man such as I requires servants to do work" (I recommend this translation/quam traductionem tibi commendo).

Do you know the term 'nexus'? It is a term invented by some old, Danish linguist to denote the relation between the action and the agent (i.e. the one doing the action) of a clause.

For example, vir desidero is a nexus relation in that vir does the action denoted by the verb.

You can imagine both a finite nexus (with a finite verb, i.e. conjugated in person, tense, mood and number), as the above example, and an infinite nexus (i.e. with a verb in the infinitive), such as servos laborare, where servos is agent of the action denoted by laborare.

Servos laborare is the object of the nexus relation vir desidero, and is in turn also a nexus in itself.

What you are talking about is labeling the principal clause, the nominative
clause and the accusative clause? Yes?

Or are you saying that EGO replaces VIR in the sentence and is in the
nominative 'Case' (a possible translation for CASU) and that likewise
SERVOS is in the accusative case (subordinate clause)?

The rule in my book is 'An objective infinitive always has a subject
in the accusative.' If EGO in your replacement is labeled officially
the nominative case does that mean that:
An objective infinitive always has a subject in the accusative but itmay also have a subject in the nominative (EGO)?

blutoonwithcarrotandnail: casu is the ablative of casus, which means case in grammar...

VIR SERVOS LABORARE DESIDERO

Basically, using Adrianus's terminologies, there are two clauses... My English translation would be: I, a man, require slaves to work.

The main clause is VIR DESIDERO, "I, a man, want" while the subsidiary clause is SERVOS LABORARE, "slaves to work". Can you see that the subject of the main clause is "I, a man" while the subject of the subsidiary clause is "slaves"? So in this one sentence there are 2 different subjects and 2 different verbs, 1 verb belonging to its own subject.

The sentence could go EGO, VIR, DESIDERO SERVOS LABORARE but EGO is unnecessary because of the personal ending in the verb DESIDERO implies the first person. VIR just clarifies that the person speaking is a man (compare this to: ave caesar, morituri te salutamus!).

Your book is right in this case though, because the 'objective infinitive' takes an accusative 'SERVOS' as its subject i.e. 'slaves to work'. The nominative 'VIR' belongs to 'DESIDERO' not 'LABORARE'.

It's true not everyone will get an answer in Latin, tienyew, but I was just posing a puzzle I thought was doable. Maybe that was a mistake. I didn't mean to frustrate.
RectÃ¨ dicis, tienyew. Problema posui quod intellegi potuit, ut credi. FortassÃ¨ erravi. Vexare nolui.